This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

A politician seemingly possessed of a shrewd calculating nature, British Prime Minister David Cameron must have decided with intent that the London headquarters of Bloomberg would be the appropriate venue to commit to an in-out referendum.

Yet for all his political wiles (now shredded), Cameron exposed himself as a business neophyte in an arena noted for its ruthless hunting down of weakness. Rather than hedging his position, he took a fully naked bet that voters would see their best interests served by remaining within the European Union.

Cameron’s referendum commitment was made in January 2013. It’s worth remembering his acknowledgement then that “democratic consent for the EU in Britain was wafer thin” and that “public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high” and that “spurious regulation” was damaging competitiveness and so on.

And yet, the self described Eurosceptic prime minister took a naked position in which the potential outcome was not outsized reward — hence worth the bet, the risk — but, merely, an ongoing presence in a common market. There were no gains to be made, only potential losses to be suffered.

So maybe all this wide-eyed astonishment at Friday’s Brexit victory is a little over baked.

Article Continued Below

That a vote of such momentous importance was run like an election for seats on an acidly tempestuous borough council was, as many have noted, an epic miscalculation. The words of noted biologist and author Richard Dawkins should make their way into the history books.

“I think it’s an outrage that people as ignorant as me are being asked to vote,” he told the Times of London in May. “This is a complicated matter of economics, politics, history, and we live in a representative democracy not a plebiscite democracy. You could make a case for having plebiscites on certain issues — I could imagine somebody arguing for a plebiscite on fox hunting, for example — but not on something as complicated and involved as the European Union. This should be a matter for Parliament.”

Atmospherically, the Leave vote’s impact on the markets didn’t come close to matching the hysteria of previous financial crises of the globalized era. Recall Black Monday circa 1987 when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 22.6 per cent. Right off that cliff.

I remember how shell shocked the traders were. Absolutely gutted.

In contrast, the FTSE 100 closed down 3.15 per cent Friday, a 117 point gain on the week. The Dow lost 3.4 per cent. The S&P 500 closed down 3.6 per cent. The Nasdaq Composite Index was shaved by 4.1 per cent.

So it was not a happy day in the markets, but a rout it was not, despite the hyperbolic language of some roundups.

The Asian contagion. The collapse of Lehman Brothers as representative of the financial crisis. Multimillionaire brokers being kicked to the curb on Wall Street with a single cardboard box full of possessions. If anything, the Brexit vote ultimately lacked the Hollywood arc with which we have become familiar, despite the prime minister’s little catch in the throat as he announced he is stepping down.

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to meet with European Council President Donald Tusk, French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

“What the consequences of this decision will be,” Merkel said Friday, “depends on whether the other 27 member states will prove to be willing and capable to draw not hasty and simplified conclusions from the British vote that would only divide Europe further.” Keep calm and carry on, in other words.

Italy’s Renzi staked a feistier position when he tweeted: “We need to change the EU, making it fairer and more human.”

Months, likely years, of negotiations lie ahead as Britain and the EU work to frame their future relationship. The timeline, governed by an article in the Lisbon Treaty, allows for two years, but even that is subject to renegotiation. (The treaty also allows for a procedure to consider a state’s request to rejoin.)

Will business retrench? Will consumers sit on their pocketbooks? Will trade be impaired? No one knows. The only fact that can be clearly stated is that David Cameron made a very bad bet, and for that he has paid a very big price.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com